Narrowing down based on just the numbers

[Troy28]

Hi! This is a great site and I have learned a lot over the past month. Because of the pics/info I have gathered, I have decided on a J stone w/ eye clean SI1/SI2 for my fiance. Right now, I am at the point where I am trying to narrow down a few stones before contacting the vendors. Based on just the numbers (minus idealscope images- although one vendor has them posted), what are the top picks here? They are all very similar diamonds (except for #4-slightly bigger). Which one would you pick & why? Thanks! I plan to contact the vendors regarding the stones once I have it narrowed down to two.
Thanks for your time.

1)
J
SI1
2.045
8.16 - 8.22 x 5.01 mm
Depth 61.1%
Table 56%
Girdle 1.2-1.7
Culet PT
Crown Angle 34.7
Pavilion Angle 40.7
Polish IDEAL
Symmetry IDEAL
Fluorescence N
Price $13,219
HCA= 1

2)
J
SI1
2.040
8.23 - 8.26 x 4.99
Depth 60.4
Table 56%
Girdle 1.1-.1.5
Culet PT
Crown Angle 34.8
Pavilion Angle 40.7
Polish EX
Symmetry EX
Fluorescence N
Price $12,850
HCA= 1

3)
J
SI1
2.05
8.25 - 8.29 x 5.00
Depth 60.5
Table 56%
Girdle 0.6-1.1
Culet PT
Crown Angle 34.7
Pavilion Angle 40.7
Polish IDEAL
Symmetry IDEAL
Fluorescence N
Price $13,264
HCA = 0.9

4)
J
SI2
2.11
8.35 - 8.39 x 5.04
Depth 60.2
Table 56%
Girdle 0.7-1.8
Culet VERY SMALL
Crown Angle 34
Pavilion Angle 40.7
Polish IDEAL
Symmetry IDEAL
Fluorescence N
Price $12,100
HCA = 0.7

 

[Dancing Fire]

Troy28

#1 base on just those infor,on a 2 ct size i would go si1 or vs2 plus i like the 61.1 % depth.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

#2 and #3 for me...

I prefer a depth less than 61%... plus both are larger than #1 and i edge on numbers towards #2 simply on cost. But really images and the IS image can help alot more than just the numbers.

Just remember to make sure if any are NOT eye clean...as i dont think you''ll want something that may spoil the look of the diamond - and may be a deciding factor in the purchase. plus check the return policy - since to one person it may be Eye clean - to another it might not... so that return policy gives peace of mind. There are many many beautiful SI graded diamonds.

 

[He Scores]

If cut is what you''re trying to determine, would it be any easier for you to make a buying decision if on a scale of 0-1000 with a thousand being the best the stones were scored i.e. 752, 818, 896?

Similar to SAT scores or credit scores.


A new service called BrayScore will do this for you. It analyses technical measurement data and consolidates it into a single score. It''s a judgement of the cutter''s workmanship.


Bill
BrayScore.com

 

[strmrdr]

Date: 3/31/2005 6:16:38 AM
Author: He Scores




If cut is what you''re trying to determine, would it be any easier for you to make a buying decision if on a scale of 0-1000 with a thousand being the best the stones were scored i.e. 752, 818, 896?


Similar to SAT scores or credit scores.




A new service called BrayScore will do this for you. It analyses technical measurement data and consolidates it into a single score. It''s a judgement of the cutter''s workmanship.



Bill

BrayScore.com

Not unless I knew exackly what was being measured.
Why it was being measured and how it was being measured.
And how a diamond with one score compares to another in the real world on the finger.
Any one can pull a number out of thin air :}

 

[Rhino]

Hi Troy,

When you've attained this much information, the next steps in defining the various appearances between these different stones would be to attain minor facet information (ie. length of the lower girdles, stars and angles of the upper girdles) and variances. With that info we could generate virtual models of hte stones in question to help you further. Otherwise your primary angles look fine on all these stones. Tweaking the minors (and their variances) can affect intensity and amount of sparkle in these candidates.

 

[valeria101]

Unless you can see these side by side (unlikely), there''s no way to pick and choose among slight differences of "personality". Besides, this diamond is for someone else

and it doesn''t sound likely (IMO) that you could guess such slight tweacks of personal taste. You could let your girl pick the rock, but that another story altogether...

Based on the detailed numbers, these guys should have the all important sparkle factopr secured. And if one happens to be the unlucky exception to the rule, you will get to see that one and there is some return policy. If the seller could provide Ideal-Scope photos, great - of course.

Now, these are SI clarity and the place and type of inclusions make the difference between "eye clean" and not quite.

If no detailed photos are available, at least the plots on the certs should be for a first very rough guess.


Just my 0.2.

Among these, clarity would do the cut, IMO.

 

[hoorray]

They all have great potential. I would get idealscope pictures and details on the inclusions to help differentiate.

 

[He Scores]

Date: 3/31/2005 7:37:25 AM
Author: strmrdr

Date: 3/31/2005 6:16:38 AM
Author: He Scores




If cut is what you''re trying to determine, would it be any easier for you to make a buying decision if on a scale of 0-1000 with a thousand being the best the stones were scored i.e. 752, 818, 896?


Similar to SAT scores or credit scores.




A new service called BrayScore will do this for you. It analyses technical measurement data and consolidates it into a single score. It''s a judgement of the cutter''s workmanship.



Bill

BrayScore.com

Not unless I knew exackly what was being measured.
Why it was being measured and how it was being measured.
And how a diamond with one score compares to another in the real world on the finger.
Any one can pull a number out of thin air :}

Strmdr,

There is some explanation on my websight of how BrayScore works, www.BrayScore.com.
I think the golf analogy works, but if you have further questions I''ll gladly answer them for you.

When a cutter like myself is placing the facets on the diamond, how does he know whether they are correct or not? The answer is, there are certain "elements" that need to be met in order for the facet to be correctly placed. As an example, lets take a main facet on the bottom. The "critical" angle for a bottom main is 40.75 degrees. This is one element that the cutter shoots for. Using measurement data from a Sarin machine (or any other that could produce the needed measurements), the BrayScore webbased platform would take that measurement value and deduct points for various degrees of error. So a bottom main that had a measured angle of say 41.0 degrees would have 4 points deducted for it. All mains are measured, and not averaged like most grading today. Depending on which facet is being cut, there are 2 or 3 measurable elements for each facet.

As far as what the scored stone looks like, I''ve had about 50 trades people examine three annonymous stones that had scores. They were to rank them in order of "which is cut the best'' and then attempt to "affix a score" to them. There was a very high correlation between what was percieved as the nicest make and score. While about half of the group missed on predicting what the scores were, they were successful in predicting the difference between each stone.

I hope this explanation helps. If you have further questions let me know.


Bill

 

[Troy28]

Thanks you to all who responded! Your thoughts and comments are extremely helpful.

Dancing Fire- What is it about a depth of 61.1% that appeals to you?

Lord Summer- Why do you like a depth of less than 61%

What visual difference would the slight difference in depth make in the stone?


Rhino- Do I contact the vendors to attain the minor facet information (ie. length of the lower girdles, stars and angles of the upper girdles)? Or is that on the certificate and sarin data?

Valeria- If I could "guess" what my girlfriend would like.. I''d go with the biggest looking stone! I think size is her primary concern. That is why I have decided to go with a J stone. I was hesitant at first, but after looking at many of the beautiful J stones on this site, I felt comfortable going down to a "J" so I can get her a bigger diamond. So, in looking at the measurements, #4 seemed like the winner to me (and the price is lower!).

Noone picked #4 however as their favorite. Is this because of the SI2? If confirmed to be eye clean, woud this be a good choice?

Also, regarding stone #3, the girdle is thinner than the other stones. Should I be concerned with this?

 

[Lord Summerisle]

reasoning is simple.

2 stones.. of equal weight... identical clarity plot (never going to happen) same angles... but one has a depth of 61.5% and another 60.5% the one with the lower depth will be that little bit larger.

Thats not to say i''ll kick a deeper stone out of bed if its a better performer than a shallower stone...

in the stones you noted... #2 is cheaper and lighter in weight than #1 yet it is that little bit bigger... but #3 is bigger than #1 and #2 and nott much more expensive than #1 - #4 is biggest of them all... but lower clarity...

in all cases check if they are eye clean...of the numbers all stack up with good scores on the HCA...

If #4 is eye clean then i favour that. only thing that would sway me was image information that showed otherwise. and really at teh end of the day.,. it''ll be up to your eyes.

 

[Rhino]

Hi Troy,

I''ll answer your question to me and attempt the others.

Date: 3/31/2005 1:50:51 PM
Author: Troy28
Thanks you to all who responded! Your thoughts and comments are extremely helpful.

Dancing Fire- What is it about a depth of 61.1% that appeals to you?

Of course I''m no psychic but I do know DF and many stones he''s looked at and purchased have had depths around this zone. It''s a green flag for those of us who are looking for nice goods. Depths in the range of approx. 60.5 up to 61.x are a cherry zone.

Lord Summer- Why do you like a depth of less than 61%

Probably because of a slightly bigger spread. While a good point there are other factors that are going to contribute to the appearance of the stone way more than a few tenths of a percent in depth. Ie. a diamond can have a depth of 60.7% (which LS would like) however there are other features like *lower girdles* which can and do greatly affect appearance 100x more than a total depth measurement will. Of course my friends here will correct me if my assumptions regarding their answers are off.

What visual difference would the slight difference in depth make in the stone?

None whatsoever.

Rhino- Do I contact the vendors to attain the minor facet information (ie. length of the lower girdles, stars and angles of the upper girdles)? Or is that on the certificate and sarin data?

It''s not on any current lab report that I know of. Only certain Sarin''s can provide this data too. If you can get a copy of the Sarin file (has an extension of .srn) and it''s been scanned with Sarin''s more recent software (DiaVision) I can provide the minor facet details and also generate a *virtual model* for you of the stone. Attached is an example of 2 (out of thousands of) combinations with varying minor facet dimensions which will affect the face up appearance of stone #1 in the list you''ve provided.

Valeria- If I could ''guess'' what my girlfriend would like.. I''d go with the biggest looking stone! I think size is her primary concern. That is why I have decided to go with a J stone. I was hesitant at first, but after looking at many of the beautiful J stones on this site, I felt comfortable going down to a ''J'' so I can get her a bigger diamond. So, in looking at the measurements, #4 seemed like the winner to me (and the price is lower!).

Noone picked #4 however as their favorite. Is this because of the SI2? If confirmed to be eye clean, woud this be a good choice?

On the net people are generally nervous about getting SI2 graded stones and rightfully so. In the sizes you''re considering keep in mind that the larger the rock the easier it is to see into its facets and in stones graded SI2 there''s a good chance you''ll see it. The last thing you want is for your future mother-in-law to look at the diamiond and see inclusions.

If you can get darkfield illumination shots of the stone we could help determine this for ya.

Also, regarding stone #3, the girdle is thinner than the other stones. Should I be concerned with this?

.6% on a girdle is ok. AGS would give it a hit if it dipped below .51% as not being ideal.

Regards,

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Rhino - Just wondered...
the 2 images you put above... left, lower girdles is about 80% while right is what 70/75%? (maybe for a comparison a image of LGs at >85%?)

Troy... Really this is where the cut geeks (and i count myself a beginner in this) begin to come out... but really... these details have an effect on the look of the diamond... giving it a personality of its own. Its not something that means we can say from numbers get X over Y because of the lower girdles being Z rather than V... but that X look different to Y for this reason - and only you can decide which you prefer.

sorry i cant vague it up a little for you...

 

[Rhino]

Date: 3/31/2005 5

4:37 PM
Author: Lord Summerisle
Rhino - Just wondered...
the 2 images you put above... left, lower girdles is about 80% while right is what 70/75%? (maybe for a comparison a image of LGs at >85%?)

Troy... Really this is where the cut geeks (and i count myself a beginner in this) begin to come out... but really... these details have an effect on the look of the diamond... giving it a personality of its own. Its not something that means we can say from numbers get X over Y because of the lower girdles being Z rather than V... but that X look different to Y for this reason - and only you can decide which you prefer.

sorry i cant vague it up a little for you...

Good question Lord.

The stone on the right has lower girdles at 70% while the stone on the left has em at 80%. At your request I've put together a little chart showing possible results for stone #3 on the list (your fav). The major facet proportions are all the same and the star facets I've also left at a constant 53%. The only variable here is the lower girdles starting at 70% and going up increments of 5% up to 85%. Hope this helps.

 

[Rhino]

Also ... if my understanding is correct not all of these minor facet combo''s will be getting "ideal" grades in the upcoming system. I do know that if the upper girdle facets are cut to angles greater than 44 degrees I don''t believe this is going to make the ideal grade and it is a metric currently not covered on most Sarin/OGI''s.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Troy28

another reason i like #1 is the crown 34.7 combine with 40.7 pavil,not just because of the 61.1% depth.in fact both of my wife''s stone has a 60.8% depth.stone #4 might be too shallow/shallow combo for me.

 

[Mara]

hmm personally i like #2 or #3 from the numbers...but #4 could be a contender too.

i like the numbers, diameters, angles, better on #2 and #3. #4 has a bigger stone, better spread, but i dont love the 'very small' culet. a tiny thing but for me...#2 and #3 have excellent numbers. also i don't love the 34 crown on #4...some people may like that but for me the 34.7/34.8 is a real sweet spot with those corresponding pav angles.

i prefer also a depth under 61 because of the larger spread that comes with it. compare #1 spread to #2 or #3 ... it will look a tiny bit smaller. not a big deal but when you are comparing amazing apples to apples, i like the biggest apple.

you gain .10mm with stone #2 or #3 over #1 and to me that is something.

my stone is something like a 56% table with a 60.5% depth and it looks bigger than another 1.60c stone with a 61.5% or similar table. just being nitpicky.

i wouldn't worry about the girdle either on #2.

rhino had some good comments on the minor facets...but hard to decipher into customer speak what that means...which would you prefer based upon your facet estimations rhino?

edited to add that rhino noted that the minor differences in the depth would make no difference whatsoever visually--i disagree because as i noted above, spread is a visual difference between #1 and #2/#3 in my opinion. so it may not affect PERFORMANCE but visual--those stones will appear very slightly larger.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

AH!!! Stone #4 = Blue Nile. but I''m denied access ATM

blooming work scout bot.

 

[Lord Summerisle]

Aye, do you want to split the next hair? or shall I?

 

[Troy28]

Diamond #1:

 

[Troy28]

Diamond #3:

 

[Troy28]

Diamond #1:

 

[Troy28]

Diamond #3:

 

[Troy28]

Hello there,

I am making final decision this evening on the stone. Any additional comments or suggestions?

 

[deggles]

Rhino,

I''ve got a quick question based on the four simulated stones that you provided images of. With everything else held constant, what differences in ''personality'' will the four stones have based on just the lower girdle percentages changing from 70% to 85%?

Thanks in advance,

Deggles